WotC Unveils Draft of New Open Gaming License

As promised earlier this week, WotC has posted the draft OGL v.1.2 license for the community to see.

A survey will be going live tomorrow for feedback.

Starting the OGL ‘Playtest’

In this article, you can review a draft of OGL 1.2, submit feedback via survey, and learn about a Creative Commons license that puts D&D's core mech...

www.dndbeyond.com

The current iteration contains clauses which prohibit offensive content, applies only to TTRPG books and PDFs, no right of ownership going to WotC, and an optional creator content badge for your products.

One important element, the ability for WotC to change the license at-will has also been addressed, allowing the only two specific changes they can make -- how you cite WotC in your work, and contact details.

This license will be irrevocable.

The OGL v1.0a is still being 'de-authorized'.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I mean, depending on what they mean by the core content exactly, callooh callay oh frabjous day!

But, shedding some darkness on that upbeat point, I would say that the particular examples of "Magic Missile" and "Owlbear" as things that belong to them are a little problematic. Owlbear is a straightforward chimera of bear and owl with a basic name. Magic Missile is an unerring missile of magic. I almost used the latter as an example a few days ago of something they would have a somewhat dubious claim to. In both cases I think you could safely use the thing under a different name, or the name for a different thing, and that it is only both having your chimera of owl and bear called "owlbear" that puts it in the danger zone.

On Owlbear ....

See, e.g., Deckers Ourtdoor v. Australian Leather Pty. Ltd., 340 F. Supp. 3d 706 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (holding, inter alia, that the use of the term "uggs" as a generic term in Australia did not prevent Plaintiff from absolutely tearing the Defendant a new hole to his posterior).

If someone says, "Owlbear," does a person think, "Woah, that's a portmanteau of an Owl and a Bear," or does a person think, "That's a D&D monster."

 

[eyeheartawk]

The OSR (and clones) were all made with the OGL and SRD but being a bit creative with it to make it "AD&D-esque". There was never an SRD for TSR era D&D. You can still do what with the new license. As far as I can tell, the only difference is you can't put hate speech in it going forward.

Sure, but it was always about the legal cover of pointing at the 3.5 SRD the OGL made available and saying you flipped AC around and changed skills, that sort of thing. Are they expecting the OSR to use the 5.1 SRD and just, I guess, do more work? Seems strange to exclude.

 

[Scribe]

The OSR (and clones) were all made with the OGL and SRD but being a bit creative with it to make it "AD&D-esque". There was never an SRD for TSR era D&D. You can still do what with the new license. As far as I can tell, the only difference is you can't put hate speech in it going forward.

Yes, but (and again apologies if I'm unclear) WHICH, SRD.

 

[Kinematics]

Aside from the fact that the morality clause is still hugely problematic, and absolutely should not be there, no, you don't need to de-authorize 1.0a in order to make use of it. If you want to "add protection" in 1.2 against hateful content, then that means you personally vouch for the "safety" of all 1.2 content, and you do not vouch for the "safety" of 1.0a content.

If someone wants to publish something you don't like, but feel that they can't under 1.2 due to moral uncertainties, letting them publish under 1.0a does not make it your problem. Bypassing your ability to censor them is not a flaw in the system. It just means that, just like they always could before, people can publish things that the individual consumers will have to evaluate and determine whether it's acceptable or not, rather than leaving such judgement to Big Brother.

 

[Reynard]

Okay, people smarter than me: why did they go with CC for the "core mechanics"?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Or you know, you use the 3.5 SRD.

Big deal. Do what OSR 3PP have been doing for the past 20 years. There was never an AD&D or b/x SRD either, but you could use the current SRD and just be creative with your mechanics to create a clone or compatible product anyway.

 

[darjr]

A safe haven with a CC license is important.

But leaving out the older SRDs is not good.

 

[Nikosandros]

Looking at the text of the new license, there is no reason to keep using 1.0 unless you want to put hate speech in your product. That's the only real change there.

Or you want to use 3rd Edition rules or, more likely, all the products derived from that SRD.

 

[Remathilis]

The OSR (and clones) were all made with the OGL and SRD but being a bit creative with it to make it "AD&D-esque". There was never an SRD for TSR era D&D. You can still do what with the new license. As far as I can tell, the only difference is you can't put hate speech in it going forward.

For everything else, there's ORC.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Big deal. Do what OSR 3PP have been doing for the past 20 years. There was never an AD&D or b/x SRD either, but you could use the current SRD and just be creative with your mechanics to create a clone or compatible product anyway.

Let me guess, you don't publish any content that uses the 3.5 SRD do you? Because, if you did, I imagine you wouldn't dismiss it so easily.